New Hampshire Ruling Allowing Outside Counsel in Opioid Suits Should Have Limited Overall Impact
A recent ruling by the New Hampshire Supreme Court allowing the Attorney General to use outside counsel to investigate the marketing practices of drug manufacturers might be cited in similar cases in other states but should have limited impact on the overall outcome.
Legal experts following the cases point to a number of states adopting the Transparency in Private Attorney Contracting Act (TiPAC). In most instance, contingency fees are not permitted.
“The law removes the incentive a contingency lawyer would have to drive up the costs in the case because they have to bill hourly,” one expert said.
In another recent development on the opioid front, drug manufacturers cited in a lawsuit brought by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood are asking the state Supreme Court to move the trial from Hinds County where it was filed by Hood to neighboring Rankin County where two of the out-of-state drug makers’ registered agents live. The drug companies are arguing that under Mississippi law, the change of venue to the county where the registered agents reside is proper.
Reporter for the Daily Journal, Bobby Harrison, who is covering the story, said that in general, Hinds County, where Jackson is the county seat, “is viewed as more friendly to the plaintiffs in terms of both juries and judges. Rankin County, next door, is viewed as more conservative and more friendly to defendants in civil trails. It should be pointed out, though, that AG Hood did garner a large verdict (more than $30 million I think) from judge in a lawsuit against drug maker over the prices they were charging for drugs for Medicaid recipients.”